S/He Who Cares About Every Tear!

Saida Mirsadri[1]

“The qur’anic evidence supports an amipotent rather than an omnipotent God.”

O S/He, who is great in His/Her mightiness, 

O S/He, who is near despite His/Her greatness, 

O S/He, who is subtle in His/Her nearness.[2]

We are at a critical juncture in our contemporary history, where wars – with the potential to escalate into vast regional or even world conflicts – are raging across the globe, many in the name of God. Although modern human thought, particularly since the Enlightenment and the establishment of secular political systems, had relegated religion to the past, we now find ourselves in a post-Enlightenment, secular age grappling with two devastating wars; one in the Middle East, and the other in the heart of Europe. Both are waged by secular states, yet each is fueled by religious rhetoric and supported by religious leaders and institutions. The Russian Orthodox Church justifies the war led by the Russian state, a secular entity, against Ukraine with religious arguments. Meanwhile, the right-wing extremist administration in Israel, another secular state, repeatedly justifies massacres of civilians using biblical references. Muslim fundamentalists and Muslim leaders react with religious and often apocalyptic rhetoric. The God invoked by each side endorses and “argues” with “logic” steeped in absolutism and exclusivism.

This should, however, come as no surprise! The classical divine image depicted by the three monotheistic religions has long fostered religious tribalism and the pursuit of absolute power. In recent decades, many thinkers have sharply critiqued this authoritarian, power-driven image of God, highlighting its profound implications for our worldview and value systems. Thomas Jay Oord also addresses this in his recent work, where he aptly notes: “Seeing God as omnipotent affects how believers think about political leaders and social policies. Carl Schmitt, the progenitor of political theology, argues that humans build political systems from assumptions about divine sovereignty. ‘All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts,’ says Schmitt, ‘not only because of their historical development—in which they were transferred from theology to the theory of the state, whereby, for example, the omnipotent god became the omnipotent lawgiver—but also because of their systematic structure’”.[3]

From America’s Trumpism to the Muslim rulers’ authoritarianism to European right-wing parties’ tribalism, the motif of the omnipotent God continues to inspire and legitimize the rule of arbitrary, law-breaking, anti-democratic leaders. As Oord aptly observes, “when God is worshipped as King of kings and Lord of lords, it’s natural to think political leaders should be afforded at least some of the privileges we afford God. When we ask, ‘Who has unlimited power?’ says Schmitt, we identify a king, president, prince, or some other power broker whom we regard as above the law. God and king are granted exceptions. In fact, the typical understanding of miracles assumes an omnipotent God occasionally breaks the laws of nature and controls humans”.[4]

Moreover, this image of the divine justifies systematic evil, since “omnipotence directly or indirectly supports political leaders and policies, no matter how oppressive. It stands to reason that an all-powerful God installs or permits the actions of every ruler and authoritarian system”.[5]

Faced with such instances of systematic evil and suffering, believers may begin to doubt the existence of God, or at least that of a loving, all-powerful God: “‘An omnipotent God who truly loves would not allow political bullies to persecute us,’ some say. ‘Nor would a loving God uphold systems that crush us!’”.[6] This doubt is, according to Oord, justified.

Given the irreversible harm and confusion caused by the belief in an omnipotent deity, therefore, following Oord, I argue that it is high “time to commit dictiocide: to kill “omnipotence”.[7] This is a concept that neither has scriptural grounding nor philosophical backing: “Omnipotence is not born of scripture, and it dies a death of a thousand qualifications in philosophy. Evil buries the corpse six feet under. But the death of omnipotence is not the death of God”.[8]

However, in the aftermath of this dectiocide, a pressing question arises: “How should we talk about God’s power? What words and ideas might replace omnipotence?”[9] Oord offers a replacement he calls amipotence, the infinite power of love.

***

As a Muslim and a woman, I find myself increasingly disillusioned with the classical image of an all-powerful, all controlling male God. This image raises a persistent question in my mind: How can we talk about God in ways that make sense scripturally, philosophically, experientially, and theologically? Each time I confront this question, I find myself drawn to the concept of amipotence, as the only viable alternative!

Historically, Muslim (male) thinkers have emphasized certain divine attributes at the expense of others. This selective focus begs the question: Why out of the 99 names of God, have certain attributes been elevated above others? Why did “Al-Rahim” (“the Compassionate”) and the “Al-Rahman” (“the Merciful”) – two profoundly feminine attributes, with which the very first chapter and every single sura of the Qur’an begins – never become the primary attributes defining the divine?

As noted by Böwering, “Al-Rahman, cited 57 times in the qur’anic text” is a name that holds equal importance to that of Allah.[10] God’s mercy (Rahma) is attested more than a hundred times in the Qur’an. God openly announces that “He has made mercy incumbent upon Himself” (Q 6:12; 6:54). God is not just merciful and compassionate, He is also “loving” (Wadud, Q 11:90; 85:14), engaging in a mutual loving relationship with humans: He loves them and they love Him (Q 5:54).

Another prominent divine attribute in the Qur’an is “the Creator”. “The theme of God as creator was central to the earliest layers of Muhammad’s proclamation of the Qur’an.”[11] Böwering explains further: “Creation is seen in the Qur’an as God’s permanent work, an understanding that sees creation as the ongoing existence of the world rather than as one single event at the beginning of the universe (Q 79:27-33; 80:17)”.[12]

Therefore, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo – advocated later by Muslim theologians, and closely tied with the concept of divine omnipotence – is not rooted in the Qur’an. As Böweing notes, “The Qur’an neither speaks of nothingness and chaos preceding creation nor offers a story of creation similar to that of the Book of Genesis… Creation is not a unique moment at the beginning of time…setting history in motion,” it is rather, “a process experienced by humans as happening at each and every moment.”[13]

The attribute of creativity, then, stands as one of the most central divine attributes: “In the Qur’an God is called three times ‘the maker’ (bari, Q 2:54; 59:24), twice ‘the originator’ (badi) of the heavens and the earth” (Q 2:117; 6:101), once ‘the shaper’ (muawwir, Q 59:24) and about half a dozen times, ‘the creator’ (khaliq, e.g. Q 13:16) who is constantly creating (khallaq, Q 36:81) all things…God creates ‘what he wishes’ (mā yashā’, Q 3:47; 5:17; 24:45; 28:68; 30:54; 39:4; 42:49) and gives existence by the divine command, ‘‘Be!,’ And it is’ (kun! fa-yakūn, Q 2:117; 3:47, 59; 6:73; 16:40; 19:35; 36:82: 40:68)”.[14]

Why not, then, envision the God of the Qur’an as the Poet of the world – much like Whitehead did – who creates with His/Her Word (“Be!”), the Artist of the universe who fashions us in the wombs of our mothers (Q 3:6), and the Creative Force of the cosmos, who, far from creating ex nihilo, is continuously engaged in the act of creation at every moment?

It is, however, important to recognize that the divine creativity does not work independently of creation. Far from being self-sufficient, the God of the Qur’an seeks cooperation and help from creatures: “Allah will surely help those who help Him” (Q 22:40). Or: “O you who have faith! If you help Allah, He will help you and make your feet steady. (Q 47:7). Jesus’ disciples are twice called “Allah’s helpers” in the Qur’an (Q 3:52, 61:14).

This indicates that the divine creative power, far from being a unilateral omnipotence, is relational and interactive, with God and creation intertwined, cooperating in the ongoing process of bringing the universe into being.  

Therefore, it is “creativity” and “mercy” that emerge as the central divine attributes in the Qur’an, rather than “omnipotence”. Interestingly, the word “omnipotence” does not appear in the Qur’an. Words denoting “power” or “powerful” do, but not “all-powerful” in the absolute sense. As Knysh notes, “These various connotations of the English word ‘power’ are conveyed in the Qur’an and qur’anic commentaries by such Arabic terms as sultan, mulk, qahr,‘izza, nufudh, quwwa, ghalaba, istita’a, taqa, ba’s”.[15] None of these terms imply omnipotence in the sense of absolute, unilateral power. Rather, they indicate power, sovereignty, strength, dominion, and the like – without being superlative or implying absoluteness and exclusiveness.

The concept of omnipotence may be inferred in the Qur’an where God is depicted as a King seated on a heavenly throne. “God is one, the unique sovereign of the heavens and the earth and the only ruler ‘who has no associate (sharik) in the sovereignty’ (Q 17:111; 25:2) and does not share his power with anyone”. However, this “categorical denial of any partner in divine power” should be understood as “an expression of the explicit rejection of shirk, the foremost religious crime in Islam, that of associating partners with God. The phrase is directed against pre-Islamic idolatry or polytheism”.[16] Thus, rather than portraying an anthropomorphic image of God, this metaphor serves as a denial of polytheism, not a depiction of divine absolute power.

In light of this, one might conclude that the Qur’an does not necessarily support omnipotence. The most prominent divine attribute in the Qur’an is “al-Rahman”, the All-Merciful, rather than the All-Powerful. God should not necessarily be understood as the sole cause of the universe. There is evidence in the Qur’an that God presumes and seeks creaturely cooperation. This more dynamic and compassionate understanding of God invites a reimagining of the divine that aligns more closely with the feminine, nurturing and loving aspects; an amipotent, not the classical omnipotent, God!

                                                                        ***

O S/He, who hears each whisper’s plea,

O S/He, to whom all complaints do flee

Pain and suffering rage in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and in countless other corners of our world – some we hear about through the media, while many others remain in silence. We are bombarded with images of human catastrophe, day in and day out. Wars are waged in the name of one religion’s sovereign God against another’s authoritative deity. They all, yet, have one thing in common: an omnipotent God that valorizes absolute power and sanctions religious tribalism: the classical God of omnipotence. This deeply-entrenched and highly problematic divine image permeates our mentality, political systems, and conceptions of reality. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of replacing this highly problematic, power-thirsty, vengeful and tribal God with a loving, creative and life-giving cosmic deity. It is, thus, high time to declare the death of omnipotence, so that amipotence may reign!

O S/He, who cares about (is merciful to) every tear,

O S/He, who oversees each slip and error clear,

…

O Forbearing to those who disobey,

O Magnanimous to those who in Him/Her their hope lay.[17]

Bio: Saida Mirsadri is a Research Fellow at the CTSI (Center for Comparative Theology and Social Issues), at the University of Bonn, Germany. She earned both her Masters and PhD degree in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Tehran, Iran.

OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE

Saida Mirsadri offers a beautiful and highly educational essay. I agree with her that the God of Carl Schmitt’s political theology is not a God of perfect love. I admit I do not know the Qur’an as well as I should, though I recognize some of the divine names Saida mentions. She compellingly builds an argument for amipotence from Muslim scriptures. I was pleased to learn creation from nothing is absent in the Quran. I also appreciate her emphasis on God’s mercy over power. Saida’s work encourages me, revealing resonances between the Christian God of love and Islam’s merciful deity.

For more on comparing the Qur’an and the Bible as they portray God, see this review article from Thomas Jay Oord.

* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.

[1] Saida Mirsadri is a Research Fellow at the CTSI (Center for Comparative Theology and Social Issues), at the University of Bonn, Germany. She earned both her Master’s and PhD degree in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Tehran, Iran.

[2] Al-Jawshan al-Kabir, 35. Al-Jawshan al-Kabir is a supplication widely used in Shiite Muslim tradition (The translations are mine).

[3] Oord, Thomas Jay, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence, Grasmere, Idaho: SacraSage, 2023, 85.

[4] Ibid., 86-87.

[5] Ibid., 6.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 74.

[8] Ibid., 6-7.

[9] Ibid. 

[10] Böwering, Gerhard, “God and his attributes”, in Mcauliffe, J. D. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Qur’an, Vol. 2. Brill: Leiden, Boston, 2002, pp. 316-331, 317.

[11] Ibid., 328.

[12] Ibid., 326-327.

[13] Ibid., 327.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Knysh, Alexander D., “Power and Impotence”, in Mcauliffe, J. D. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Qur’an. Vol. 4., Brill, Leiden, Boston, 2004, pp. 210-213, 210.

[16] Böwering, 329.

[17] Al-Jawshan al-Kabir, 24, 18.